Suit dismissed for want of prosecution as the plaintiff and advocate were absent despite a granted adjournment and no steps taken to proceed.
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1014 OF 1998
Sangeeta Shah ..Plaintiff. Vs. Aslam Saiyad Mohd. And another ..Defendants.
None present for the parties.
CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
18th August, 2009.
P.C. :
On the previous date an adjournment was granted on the request of the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff who stated that the advocate was unable to remain present. Three weeks’ time was granted to the Plaintiff to take necessary steps failing which it was observed that the Court would be constrained to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution. It
was expressly made clear that no further adjournment would be granted.
The Plaintiff and his advocate are absent. No steps have been taken.
The suit shall accordingly stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
